Luminescence Toxicological Analysis of Water Supply Systems in Dispersed Rural Areas: A Case Study in Boyacá, Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have seriously corrected all the queries. Now manuscript may be accepted for publication.

Author Response

We thank the evalution of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study. The authors have collected a large dataset of water samples and have used a non-conventional analytical methodology. The manuscript is well-written and structured. However, in lines 75 and 221, after Pseudomonas fluorescens, and before Asocardoncillos 'y' alphabet is there. Is it a typographical mistake or some word that is missing?

The discussion part is a little inexplicable in relation to the title of the paper. The authors could add more about the V. fischeri inhibition rate, heavy metals, and Total Coliforms 

 

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments of the reviewers.

1. However, in lines 75 and 221, after Pseudomonas fluorescens, and before Asocardoncillos 'y' alphabet is there. Is it a typographical mistake or some word that is missing?

The error was corrected

2. The discussion part is a little inexplicable in relation to the title of the paper. The authors could add more about the V. fischeri inhibition rate, heavy metals, and Total Coliforms.

The discussion was improved discussing the relation between V. fischeri inhibition rate, heavy metals, and Total Coliforms. See lines 301 to 306 and 313 to 332.

Reviewer 3 Report

paper is well written need some concern before publication

1. abstract need to modify via adding some more numeric findings along with concise conclusive sentence.

2. introduction section should be improved via adding some latest literature

3. methodology section should be modified via adding flow chart carring out research

4. quality of Fig. 5 should be improved its difficult to read the text inside the figure

5. author should revise the conclusion section with the addition of some numeric findings

english should be improved through native speakers or from professional in this field

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments of the reviewers.

 

Answers to comments Reviewer 3:

1. Abstract need to modify via adding some more numeric findings along with concise conclusive sentence

In the abstract lines 18 an19 were eliminated to include numerical information. Also, lines 21 to 25 were modified including project results

2. Introduction section should be improved via adding some latest literature

The introduction was actualized in lines 80 to 96. State of the art references related with this research were included [26 – 27 – 28- 29].

3. Methodology section should be modified via adding flow chart carring out research

The Figure 2 describing the methodology of this study was included

4. Quality of Fig. 5 should be improved its difficult to read the text inside the figure

The quality of Figure 5 was improved and now is Figure 6

5. Author should revise the conclusion section with the addition of some numeric findings.

The conclusion section was improved including lines between 337 to 347 and 347 to 350 adding numerical findings. The lines between 363 and 365 were revised and corrected

Reviewer 4 Report

attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This evaluation is related with a different study that was carried out in a Mediterranean region. Our study was carried out in Colombia (South America)